Yesterday I used the Competitive Cyclist fit calculator to get an idea of what size road bike I should be looking at. Now, bearing in mind I took the measurements alone, and that I have also test ridden 3 different size bikes, how accurate is the calculator?

Below are posted my results:

The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 54.3 - 54.8
Seat tube range c-t: 56.0 - 56.5
Top tube length: 61.2 - 61.6
Stem Length: 12.2 - 12.8
BB-Saddle Position: 84.1 - 86.1
Saddle-Handlebar: 58.6 - 59.2
Saddle Setback: 2.4 - 2.8


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 55.5 - 56.0
Seat tube range c-t: 57.2 - 57.7
Top tube length: 61.2 - 61.6
Stem Length: 11.1 - 11.7
BB-Saddle Position: 83.3 - 85.3
Saddle-Handlebar: 59.4 - 60.0
Saddle Setback: 3.6 - 4.0


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 57.2 - 57.7
Seat tube range c-t: 58.9 - 59.4
Top tube length: 62.4 - 62.8
Stem Length: 11.3 - 11.9
BB-Saddle Position: 81.6 - 83.6
Saddle-Handlebar: 61.1 - 61.7
Saddle Setback: 3.1 - 3.5


If I am reading this right, judging by the Competitive Fit results, I should be looking at a 60cm bike? Which going by my experience of test riding bikes is about right. I have tried a 58, 60 and 61cm bike and felt comfortable on all of them.

I just want to make sure I am reading the results correctly, especially as I am likely to be looking at buying a used bike and maybe unable to test it first (looking on eBay for example).

Thanks.

I have tried a 58, 60 and 61cm <-- good for you, you are a multi frame type of guy. Those guys are hard to find, u have a gift.

have you tried calling CC and talk to them about your measurements? I found their customer service folks to be very helpful.

I have never trusted that thing and probably if you ask the CC guys they dont either... look at the results... 56x60, 56x61, 59x62... Probably the op have never noticed that all frames over 58 are not longer than 59 in a matter of fact a 62 usually is like 57 long. Unless you go custom but even in custom with a frame that big as a 59 or a 61 to put in there a top tube of 60 or 62 the bike will get too flimsy, i know many will say but i have whatever... well racing world is different than custom sightseen world tho But pretty much thats what it is in real world production frames is, probably shorter top tube but longer reach too.

I believe the op should have started saying what his height and inseam is because I really dont trust that calculator at all, always shows weird stuff And probably many here dont trust it either.

??? Only if it's custom built for somebody who's all legs, or it's designed by somebody who's totally clueless. A typical 62cm bike has a 59-61cm top tube. I'm pretty familiar with that frame size, as it's what I typically ride, and I'm of average proportions for my size.

SP
Bend, OR

The CC fit calculator was spot on for me. I have normal body proportions though, so maybe it's not as accurate for those with odd proportions. I also had my girlfriend help me with the measurements. It would be foolish to think you can do this alone and achieve accurate measurements. I have my LOOK 595 set up with the French fit (56cm effective TT + 100mm -6 degree stem) and the caad 9 I'm building up will have the Competitive/Eddy fit depending on whether or not I run a 110 or 120mm stem. It's a size 54cm with a 54.5cm effective top tube. I've ridden a 54cm SuperSix with a 110mm -10 degree stem and it also felt perfect, just slightly more aggressive. That's what I'm after with my caad9 build because I'll be racing that one next year.

Here are my fit calculator results:

Measurements
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 33.75
Trunk: 24.5
Forearm: 14
Arm: 25.5
Thigh: 24
Lower Leg: 22.5
Sternal Notch: 58.75
Total Body Height: 70


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 55.5 - 56.0
Seat tube range c-t: 57.2 - 57.7
Top tube length: 54.7 - 55.1
Stem Length: 11.2 - 11.8
BB-Saddle Position: 78.6 - 80.6
Saddle-Handlebar: 53.1 - 53.7
Saddle Setback: 5.0 - 5.4


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 56.7 - 57.2
Seat tube range c-t: 58.4 - 58.9
Top tube length: 54.7 - 55.1
Stem Length: 10.1 - 10.7
BB-Saddle Position: 77.8 - 79.8
Saddle-Handlebar: 53.9 - 54.5
Saddle Setback: 6.2 - 6.6


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 58.4 - 58.9
Seat tube range c-t: 60.1 - 60.6
Top tube length: 55.9 - 56.3
Stem Length: 10.3 - 10.9
BB-Saddle Position: 76.1 - 78.1
Saddle-Handlebar: 55.6 - 56.2
Saddle Setback: 5.7 - 6.1

In case you missed it in my last post...

Don't use those fit calculator results if you took the measurements alone. Get someone to help you. Otherwise, it's going to throw you off as the results are surely messed up.

some crazy numbers there, and some that prolly are close...
we're talkin 'road' right? sport ridin?

if you got the overall height and (seems like...) inseam measurements close, then you;re about 6' 1" to 6' 3" ish ? maybe with longer legs, but close to normal proportions?

the saddle setback (a very important position thing) is freakishly short - number more common for a rider 5' to 5' 2" tall.
The ST number confirms the weird saddle setback...
Do you have freakishly long shins and super short femur ??? If not, then you got that measurement wrong...
ignore those numbers.
a 56 to 59 frame with 61-62 TT would be some weird custom thing...
If you;re not gonna do full pannier touring or hauling freight then I would stay at 60 and even look for 59 and 58 if you want a snappy ride. no more than 60 TT and vary with stem (110 to 130)
if BB to saddle height seems good the in the 81 to 84 range, then start with a setback of 7cm, moving forward if you do have a short femur, back if you're normal.
61+ TT is like wayyy out there...
I mean 83+ seatheight & 61 TT - are you 6' 4", 6' 5" ???
If I had these numbers, was 6" 1", 6' 2", not an Orangutan, and wanted a sport ride, I'd ignore the ST & setback numbers and look for max TT of 59, a square 59 ST Frame, or 'under square' 60 (TT less than 60...), even an oversquare 58 would be nice - and make up the reach with a 120 or 130 stem. I like a 59, with this info...

Edit: forget what I said about even going to 60 TT, I mean , that's like a 747... unless you put some snubnose stem...

cyclezen- The OP took the measurements himself. Hence, the crazy numbers.

course... so let's read his height ... and find out if he scrapes knuckles when he walks...

crazy...

For a comparison, try the fit calculator at Wrench Science. It similar, but different.

Right in the middle, 6'2".

I did take the measurements myself (believe I put that in my original post, and hopefully it came across that the measurements were to be taken with a pinch of salt due to that fact), and definitely if I plan to use the calculator again will have my wife assist me in taking the measurements.

Perhaps that is what confused me when looking at the numbers, especially as I had ridden some 58, 60cm bikes, so the results seemed kind of weird going by what I had been comfortable riding on.

The 60cm bike felt a little tall for me, but at the same time the 58cm bike felt a little small. For sure though I plan to test ride a few more bikes before I actually buy one.

Yeah, I think having your wife do the measuring should help some. I found wacky numbers when I measured myself, that's for sure.

remember fit calculators are a departure point.

A few years ago I tried to do those fit measurements on myself, and except for the inseam, I botched them all... gotta have someone do them and then triple check. When they're done right, those online calc's are spooky on.

Gonna be a big difference between companies and even models (cannondale and others) for same stated frame sizes, so ride as much as you can. Once you get close you can check frame geo specs and see how they compare. Some 58's are closer to what be expected of a 56/57, some go the other way. And often 1 cm more stem takes a tad 'small' bike into 'just right'.
Even things like bar width have perceivable effect. When I got my Roubaix I really could not get comfortable, it just didn;t feel right - until I swapped out the 44 bar for a 42 - Huge Diff! (that and losing the 'ergo' bends...)
buying a complete bike, without a ride is always an iffy proposition. Better is to buy a frame and then build it the way you would like - but this is always more expensive, even with decent used parts.

The CC fit calculator doesn't account for compact geometry and is, thereby, obsolete. You may as well use the Lemond formula (.65 X inseam).